Number of .50 caliber rounds to shoot down an enemy aircraft: WWII Ships vs. Fighters vs. Bombers

[@neilwilson5785]

I've learned to pause all your videos to appreciate the tables and graphs. I am commenting this because your videos are much more rewarding (for me) when I take my time and absorb the data! I hope others will find this useful.

[@frankb8898]

I fully agree with the comment. I do the same to appreciate the tables and data proposed.

[@rubbishmodeller]

@@frankb8898 Ditto

[@196cupcake]

Same, I usually pause to read the paragraph or two from the manual.

[@primmakinsofis614]

If you take the historical document's title and plug it into an internet search engine, you can often find that document online as many such historical publications have been digitized. I've found several this way thanks to this channel.

[@sjb3460]

ditto!!!

[@nicksmith1313]

Thoughts on why kamikaze planes required more rounds to shoot down: - Gunners will likely perceive higher stress if the plane is coming directly at them with the intent to ram them. - Shoot down credit is only granted if the plane misses the ship. If the plane is already on a collision course, it will require more significant damage to shoot it down before it impacts. Even if the pilot is killed or the engine is shot out, it can still impact just by momentum. - If the approach is low enough, the target may not be perceived until it is too late to effectively engage.

[@JP-JustSayin]

I came here to say exactly this. ... a disabled plane with a dead pilot can still fall on a ship, especially if that was the pilot's intent in the first place... Comparing kamikazes to other shoot downs is not exactly apples-to-apples.

[@markfryer9880]

I think that at that time in the war, the idea was just to hose pipe as much fire-power in the direction of the attacking Kamikaze as was possible. Given the vast Fleet train of supply vessels backing up the warships, the concern was to protect the warships first and worry about ammunition expenditure second. I also think that fear of direct deliberate attack was a factor in the amount of ammunition expended. Prior to the Kamikaze attacks, an aircraft crashing into a target ship was generally considered to be an accidental twist of fate. The Kamikaze changed the equation from a brave pilot attacking a ship to a pilot intent on killing the ship and himself in the attack. The attitude of the attacking pilot forced a change in the attitudes of the defending gunners. Possibly the next war to examine for gunner ammunition expenditure per plane shot down would be the Falklands. The difference between being bombed vs being attacked by Exocet missiles. Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺

[@JOHNSmith-pn6fj]

Just an opinion. I think the higher number of rounds for Kamikaze verses fighter aircraft is because they just kept firing at kamikaze's out of the necessity of the threat. They had to crash that plane 100% every time. A fighter they could let up once they were confident the plane was disabled and go to another target.

[@user-rs1fo2dd9b]

can you do more videos on the B-24 bombers? (i know they aren't your favorites compared to B-17s) also, would you be able to do videos on medium bombers such as the B-25, B-26, and ground attack aircraft like the A-20? on later-war aircraft like the B-26, its super hard to find good, thorough, evidence-based presentations such as yours. it'd be cool to watch how they worked. the helldiver is also a less commonly discussed bomber that'd be fascinating to learn on your channel. thanks for all the wealth of content you put out. truly one of the great channels on WW2 & aviation.

[@TallDude73]

That's a lot of lead going up in the air. Wow

[@Idrinklight44]

Missouri lead!

[@1977Yakko]

I think the round count went up because of the speed increase that Kamikaze planes came in at. Inexperienced pilots were literally out of control as they were diving so fast and couldn't pull up even if they wanted to. I'm guessing a diving Kamikaze wasn't using dive brakes for example and planes coming in for a torpedo attack also had to approach at a decreased speed IIRC as going too fast would damage the torpedo would it not? Kamikaze attackers were not burdened by either aspect.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

Well, likely it just as simple as result of the fact that you not only need really to shut down Kamikaze plain, but do it that way so it would change course enough to not hit ship. In simple words many those had been damaged beyond capable of flying, but not enough to change trajectory in dive.

[@sharg4610]

Yeah, it's possible that the restrictive kill requirements for kamikazes artificially deflated the numbers, even if the plane was a total loss or the pilot was incapacitated before impact.

[@MrLemonbaby]

Thank you. Who but yourself could make such a subject highly interesting.

[@willbraxton1843]

Thanks you always drop the knowledge on us

[@genreynolds6685]

My theory as to why kamikazes took more bullets to shoot down is that unless the plane is physically broken up and can no longer fly straight it will hit the ship, thus negating the credit for a kill that would have earned had it missed. If the non-kamikaze pilot had not been aiming at the ship he would have crashed into the sea and credited as a kill. So the same (large) number of bullets killed both planes but those scored as kills were reduced by the number of kamikazes that hit ships instead of the sea. Clearly, these light weapons were not very effective in keeping determined pilots from hitting ships if they got through the CAP and the 5” guns, which is why the Japanese resorted to them.

[@milferdjones2573]

They had actually taken the 50 call off of all significant ships and replaced with heaver guns. These 50's be off of transports and smaller vessels. I was primarily a range thing the 50 did not have the range of the larger. A dive bomber or torpedo bomber would have released it's bomb or torpedo right as the 50 was getting into range so the 50 could only function mostly as revenge weapon on bombers. Still was a good idea to have 50's on anything too small for the big stuff as the 50's would deter fighters from strafing I seen to many unarmed or poorly armed small crafts tore up by fighters because they were undefended or to lightly defended. Now that official mounted 50's taken off. US forces like to acquire and up gun everything So ships would grow a great many more guns than were assigned them and ground units would have way more weapons than their official documents said they would, drove the Germans nuts, especially I sure the Infantry Company with it's own Tank Platoon. ;).

[@deefa_damo]

Thanks, another interesting video & data set.

[@WilliamHarbert69]

Thank you. I thought this introductory gun cam was from a P38, but could be wrong. I’ll have a look. The VT fuse really changed everything.

[@mineown1861]

Another interesting topic , with another great video . For those looking to read a bit more on the matter , Naval history and heritage Command website has an anti-aircraft action summary from 1945 . Interesting reading , listing among many other topics , the contributing factors for the increased RPB ( rounds per bird) as the war progressed. Surprisingly it attributes over half the kills at Pearl Harbor to the Ma Deuce .

[@milferdjones2573]

I know the BB and smaller actual war ships even DD had the 50's in original component all replaced with bigger weapons as the 50 only got effective about where the dive bomber let it' bombs off or torpedo bomber release torpedo's. So they wanted something that could actually shot down something before it attacked. There were a few 50's on towers on the Battleships and I assume a lot of the rest Army AA positions and smaller ships in the harbor. Most of the bigger AA guns off line with their ships to some extent and the amount of AA weapons on the BB way way way less than later in the war.

[@JimVaught-qm6gf]

Watch the old films. Even when one was coming in disabled and clearly not about to hit the ship, they are still shooting the shit out of them.

[@xanfsnark]

I think the increase in rounds expended for suicide attacks is because the ammunition used shifted from highly effective, high cost rounds such as the 5" VT towards low efficacy, low cost rounds such as the .50 caliber machine gun. When doing normal AA duty, VT rounds are used only when they have a good shot, resulting in very low round/kill ratios. Close-in weapons systems fire when needed even with suboptimal firing solutions and do so at high rates. It would be interesting to see both dollars of ammunition per kill and seconds of firing time per kill to account for the differences in ammunition cost and cyclic firing rate.

[@keithammleter3824]

We need to know how the rounds were counted. For example, was the count the number of rounds loaded on planes minus the rounds still in the planes when they returned to base? That would count rounds fired in gun tests (done by each crew before reaching fight area) as expended against enemy planes, but would be valid for the purpose of buying sufficient ammunition from factories.

[@b1laxson]

On needing more shots on "K" planes (my first post disappeared dunno why so using "K" for the divine wind planes) = the "K" planes are on a straight course for their target by the time ship 50 cal engage = A maneuvering fighter is pulling G forces thus needs more structure without snapping things. The "K" plane isn't getting these extra force loadings = Damage to the control cables, control surfaces or pilot may not be enough for the "K" plane to go off course to avoid the ship though in a maneuvering plane these would be enough to make it erratic in flight = "K" planes may be arriving at the end of a long flight making possible (this is certainly debatable) to be low on fuel with a smaller chance of catching fire = "K" pilot mindset is different than a regular pilot. Damage such as flames, controls or structure may be disregarded due to the aggression of the "K" pilot. = Even if a "K" pilot wanted to bail out the very low altitude at time of 50 cal engagement means there isnt much time to work the canopy, climb out, jump, work the parachute all within 50 cal range of people the pilot expects to be without mercy = Thus even if alive the "K" pilot is more likely to keep the plane going in or in event of his death there is so little room and no planned manuevers that ongoing fire would be needed = This is similiar though in more detail to the general idea of needing to completely wreck the "K" plane beyond damage levels in which in maneuvering plane would be abandoned by its pilot or break due to higher g-force loads

[@w.ericwatt2987]

I take all these facts you sp wonderfully share online back to my position as a Docent with the 390th Memorial Museum ... and share them with the interested public. Thank you...thank you...thank you. A lot of us at the 390th subscribe. Great work !

[@Boba-Fett-GS1150Ez]

I was in the 3rd Armor Division, 12th Cavalry at the Fulda Gap in Germany 42 years ago and finding random old WW2 brass in the forests was so common nobody really bothered picking them up for souvenirs.

[@raoulcaliente1030]

Fascinating , , ,

[@andieslandies]

Some initial, and not very well educated, thoughts that occur to me based on the final table you presented: 1. You're a fighter pilot who is usually firing offensively at an enemy for whom you are not always the primary target, you're acutely aware of your limited ammunition supply and, in many cases, you are able and determined to delay your fire until the optimal moment. 2. I don't know enough about this campaign to postulate (was it something to do with the performance of enemy aircraft at altitude?) 3. You're on a ship with what seems like unlimited ammunition, you engage every target that comes within range of your weapon, there are weapons on your ship that are more effective over a wider variety of ranges and most targets don't get within your effective range without being hit by something else because they're trying to avoid being that close. 4. You're one of the many gunners who understandably engage every enemy aircraft as if their life depends on it; the enemy is hit and goes down, who knows how many other gunners in how many aircraft fired how many guns at it, all that matters is we're safe for now. 5. You're on a ship with what seems like unlimited ammunition, you usually engage every target that comes within range of your weapon but this one is different, it's not on a bomb or torpedo run, it's heading straight for you; you open up the moment it's in your sights regardless of the range, there's a good chance that your ship's other weapons will destroy it before it gets too close but it would be crazy to wait and see... most of them go down or blow up before you're able to get a really good burst into them but you nailed this one, it's already on fire and losing height, it's engine is sputtering as it ploughs harmlessly into the thickest part of your ship's belt armour. Like I said, I'm not well educated on this topic (which is why I'm especially grateful for these videos), please correct any false assumptions I may have made.

[@chethaynes5802]

Fascinating 😮

[@johngayder9249]

Thoughts on misses on Kamikaze: Back when it was legal my dad and his hunting partners caught a rabbit in a sack by holding a sack over the rabbit hole and putting a ferret down it. They then went to the centre of a frozen pond, made ready and released the rabbit- which immediately took off in a zigzag towards shore. All four hunters fired several times but missed! These were all experienced hunters who were ordinarily decent “snap” shooters, but in this scenario they were humbled. Dad figured it had something to do with the hunters under estimating the situation or a mix of too much or not enough adrenaline.

[@N_Wheeler]

The closer a Kamikaze got to the ship, the more small caliber guns joined the fight. Torpedo & dive bombers had limited exposure (comparatively) at close range.

[@milferdjones2573]

Correct and that why officially the Navy replaced almost all 50's on DD and larger fighting ships as they only got in range as the bombers released their weapons. But US forces famous for having way more weapons than they officially were supposed to have so some 50's got back on and 50's from smaller ships got involved. Having 50's on smaller ships helped protect from fighter strafing which was not done that much because of this.

[@RaderizDorret]

Consider the criteria for a Kamikaze to be killed: you had to stop the plane from striking the ship. .50 BMG was probably the best "all arounder" gun for aerial combat, but it's not going to have the power necessary to actually stop the incoming threat. Think of W.D.M. Bell, the famous elephant hunter: his preferred rifle was chambered in 7mm Mauser and he relied heavily on brain shots. This certainly was effective, but if that elephant is charging at you, you're going to want a Nitro Express or similar heavy caliber to stop the elephant before it gets to you.

[@davidg3944]

Interesting numbers, but mostly it points out the old saying of "jaw-jaw being better than war-war" [whether or not Churchill actually said it].

[@davidabbott1951]

Noteworthy that the B-29s and USN ships were shooting at similarly vulnerable targets - aircraft that tended to be less robust and often lacked self-sealing fuel tanks. And kamikazes were often carrying bombs as well.

[@kiwisteve6598]

The difference in rounds per kill between kamakasi and normal aircraft might be due to differences in in the composition of aircraft types between the 2 groups that come within 50 cal range. The 50 cal was the smallest and shortest range naval AA gun, so was only used on close targets after all else had failed. For normal aircraft that means torpedo and dive bombers, as fighters and medium bombers should not be getting that close to enemy naval units. While these relatively robust aircraft, implying more hits needed, they are also larger and flying relatively predictable attack flight paths. But for kamakasi, large numbers of small and more maneoiverable aircraft - eg zeros, Claude etc, even okha, are getting within 50 cal range. These are much harder to hit, so gunners expended more rounds per kill.

[@1977Yakko]

Was the VT fuse only used in the 5" guns or would it fit in the 40mm Bofors shells as well?

[@ethanmckinney203]

5" only. Vastly too large for 40mm. Also, the 40mm shell is so small that the fragment volume is small. Today, we see some bursting 40mm shells (including some proximity, I think?), but they're taking advantage of computer-controlled powered mounts with radar/laser/IR/whatever tracking.

[@dwwolf4636]

​@@ethanmckinney203various systems exist. Bofors has their 3P system which offers a variety of fusing options, distance ( time ) and proximity fusing and various combinations. It also offers a delayed detonation mode vs buildings. 35mm class and lower generally only offer time/distance fusing options.

[@ethanmckinney203]

@dwwolf4636 I understand. Meant that WWII prox fuses were way too big. Even today, the limited fragmentation of a 40mm shell is only useful because of vastly greater accuracy due to sensors, computerization, and remote powered mounts. (Just to be sure that we aren't talking past each other.)

[@blackvulture6818]

As someone from the "Excell era", I appreciate seeing some tables and graphs that arent made in said accursed software. As per why kamikazes needed more rounds per shot down I imagine it could have to do with the fact that, as you said, kills would not be awarded if the plane hit the ship. A problem I have heard that was encountered by AA gunners on ships is that often they would cause catastrophic damage on a kamikaze but it would still hit the ship since the remains would follow a ballistic trajectory. This problem was apparently more common with low caliber weapons (20mm or lower). I heard that some brittish ships would exchange some oerlikons for the older but more powerfull pompoms on single mounts. I believe this may have also played a role in the navy developing the 3 inch 50 calibers Mark 22, which was a pretty quick firing weapon for its caliber and could carry VT fuzes.

[@alfredmontestruc5466]

Agree. This is a major difference between a Kamikaze and normal enemy plane.

[@JasonWolfeYT]

kamikaze's have more bullets per kill because more of the guns get to shoot. Torpedo bombers and dive bombers don't have to get into 50cal range to make their attack if the pull out in time. Whereas even the shortest range guns get to shoot against a kamikaze.

[@milferdjones2573]

I have found some of the kill discrepancy is enemy planes damaged but not killed are treated as unharmed in most of the number of Hans-Joachim Marseille German Ace kills in Africa 158 kills credited. Article trying to debunk this stared with British recording way less kills but farther into that document you find almost all the discrepancy is in air craft damaged that returned to base. As Marseille was able to hit enemy engines from any angle with deflection shooting (leading the target) he never tried to get on enemy tail and often would take on British formations of 10 plus fighters solo and win. (seen this done in fighter simulator it amazing level of skill) In the battle of the B-17 666 against Japanese fighters the big discrepancy in kill numbers was all damaged fighters and wing men who left the battle when their partner was hit. There is no way the B-17 fire was that much worse than the B29. The analog computers did help the B-29 but not that much. I quite sure due to other reports that don't list the wounded aircraft except in the depth of the reports that a big part of discrepancy plus due to the large number of bombers firing at the same craft a lot of those bullets are overkill or damage on ships. Plus I assume attempting to create walls of fire another reason the other bomber counts so bad.

[@36736fps]

Does anyone know how many 50 BMG cartridges were produced and expended in WW2? Or any other round?

[@stewartmillen7708]

Interesting you say that the 20 mm guns on ships had longer range than 50-calibers---those mounted on planes are said to be shorter-ranged. I suppose the ship 20 mm guns had greater propellant? I would still like to know how many actual 50-caliber hits were needed, on average, to shoot down a fighter or a bomber. That to me is the key metric. The guns themselves on P-51s or B-29s or B-17s aren't any different. Surely this was calculated by gun camera footage? You're not the first one to reference "rounds expended", but I see that as a rather obscure metric (Paddy Griffith, Napoleonic and later US Civil War historian, used the high 'rounds expended per casualty' metric from the Atlanta Campaign (when the combatants had moved to trench warfare) to 'prove' that charges in the open, like Pickett's Charge, could have succeeded if only the troops had been better let and trained and had more 'elan' because "see, the rifled musket isn't really that much better than Napoleonic smoothbores"). Of course, this argument ignores that trench warfare by its nature will have a high rounds expended per casualty, and would be far higher than shooting at a body of men marching shoulder-to-shoulder in the open. In fact, other studies done of Pickett's charge have analyzed the reason for its breakdown, as if those men had simply marched on robotically nearly all of them would have been shot. Those studies have asked the question "why weren't they all shot?" and concluded that many if not most Confederates went no further than the Sunken Road in front of the Union position, and cowered there.

[@b1laxson]

On the 20mm shorter ranges. One factor can be the airplane installation using shorter barrels not different propellant. Also the plane mounts have a comparatively light structures around them compared to a ship or ground vehicle.

[@stewartmillen7708]

@@b1laxson That was my point--aircraft couldn't tolerate recoil forces as well as ships or tanks. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of ballistics, but I thought that higher muzzle velocities were achieved using higher propellant loads, and longer barrels just resulted in more accuracy.

[@beatrute2677]

There’s a lot of brass in the ocean

[@196cupcake]

I have a few guesses as to why more rounds were needed for Kamikaze aircraft.1) Relatively less training/experience for aircraft with a Kamikaze flight path. 2) The straight on profile of a fighter is a smaller target compared to a turning aircraft. 3) High closure speed, so less time to react. 4) US ships spaced too far apart for one ship to shoot down a fighter attacking another US ship, Kamikaze or otherwise. 5) Are we limiting our selves to only fighter/bomber/torpedo aircraft? Only to the late war timeframe? If you spot a scouting aircraft it might be too far away to bother trying to shoot it down. 6) Kamikaze aircraft are more likely to come into play at times when it's really popping off, and accuracy declines in those chaotic times Kamikaze or otherwise. 7) Poor data quality.

[@Larkeshet]

Kamikaze pilots didnt bail out. Hence the discrepancy.

[@beyondthedead7677]

My dad served in the Pacific, and spent time on troop transports targeted by kamikaze. He said you could judge by the type of AA fire how close they were coming. By the time the 50s opened up, a plane had gotten pretty close indeed. I'm guessing that an incoming plane presented a smaller target aspect than one doing a strafing maneuver; that the gunners didn't have the opportunity to shoot at a plane after its attack run, and that the airborne to airborne kills were likely done at closer range than at least the initial engagement range for a shipborne gun. I think the supposition that others had that kamikaze planes might continue and hit the ship despite being fatally damaged themselves is also likely.

[@rare_kumiko]

Wait, why was my other comment here deleted?

[@jeffreywilliams3421]

I'd guess that for kamikazes your gunners will expend more ammo simply because they would tend to CONTINUE SHOOTING that plane coming at you until it splashes down simply because a smoking/distressed plane might still hit the ship and cause massive damage. A gunner that might feel comfortable ceasing fire on a plane that is smoking and distressed in a normal attack would be much less likely to cease fire against a smoking/distressed plane that is still coming at their ship.

[@RachDarastrix2]

Forgive me for saying it but because of the colorless film used to record this when I saw the thumbnail I thought I was looking at a Samoli pirate. I know its not a fair thing to say, for all I know that man shot down the plane that would have dropped a bomb on my great grandmother who was in the west coast at the time.

[@VK6AB-]

If you use one piece of software and it becomes the dominant piece of software, and if you update at more or less the same time with a faulty piece of code the outcome is both predictable and inevitable. That is a failure of both the software company and the companies that use that software risk management profiles. Poor provider and poor management leads to bad outcomes. Every Board is a competently run company has a risk profile template - IT is part of that as are various scenarios.